Last time I checked, it wasn't the federal governments job to swoop in and clean up after an oil company (or any company) fucks up.
You should check again. Laws currently on the books give the Feds authority to take over cleanup operations. Furthermore, you do not sit back and watch an entity continually fuck up for months while the entire gulf coast gets ruined. Perhaps you think the Feds should not be involved in matters of national security? Again, you are stuck on stupid. When the private company isn't getting it done the Feds are supposed to step in and do it for them and then send them the bill.
No we aren't and I fail to see your point. Are you saying that we need to be Venezuala in order to protect our coast and the economies of several states after a private company fucks up (while making said private company pay for it of course)? Really?
They have neither the equipment nor technical expertise, and it shouldn't be the governments job to "bail out" a private company. BP should be made to pay for everything, and then some.
Again, no one is talking about a bailout. We are talking about leadership. Furthermore, not only have the Feds fucked up what they say they are in charge in (but no one else can tell) they are actually obstructing the cleanup and mitigation efforts. Wanna defend that? Or is it your argument that the Feds should be obstructing cleanup efforts that the State is doing on their own? It sounds like you think the Coast Guard shouldn't be involved at all and at this point I agree, tell them and the COE and the EPA to pack their shit and go back to Washington. I am sure there is all kinds of paper for them to push up there.
We do not get the majority of our oil from the Middle East, not even close. A great deal is made domestically, and of foreign production our biggest provider is Canada. So no, wasting time in the Middle East isn't a part of my plan, but I'm sure the defense contractors really like the fact that most Americans think it's a necessity that we get oil there.
Lol, so now you know a bit about where we get our oil eh? Do a quick google search did ya? So tell me please, where do we replace the 2,000,000 barrels a day that we currently import from the middle east? Who has it for sale and is willing and able to sell it to us? Go ahead, I am really looking forward to your answer on that one. Of course you probably think that we would do just fine if we lost even a small percentage of our current oil supply don't you? Domestic production will start falling off if you get your way, Mexico (our 2nd biggest provider) might start reducing exports as well. I am not sure about Canada's future outlook but unless they are actively pursuing new wells you can expect their exports to drop off as well.
BTW, you do know that a growing economy will use more energy right? So IF the economy grows at the rate the current admin is predicting we will be using much more oil in 10 years. As a matter of fact, energy usage is an excellent gauge of economic activity. So I will ask again, where do we get it from over the next 2 decades?
I also disagree that being closer to shore does anything to make it easier to cap an oil spill such as this. It doesn't. Hell, there was a massive spill off the coast of Mexico in 1979 in water that was "only" 160 feet deep.
Everybody that knows anything about the subject strongly disagrees with you. I won't waste anymore time on that point.
I'm hardly an environmental nut either, I believe strongly that we should be building nuclear power.
Hey, we agree on something.
However, the fundamental flaw with your thinking is that we need to produce more energy. We don't, the real energy savings would come conserving more of what we already produce.
A drop in the bucket. Even if it was significant though, which it wouldn't be, it would not be able to keep up with our projected economic increases and population growth. Sorry bub, conservation is great and there are a lot of common sense things we can do to use less energy and get the same end results but they will do nothing about how much oil we will require in the near to mid term. Again, ANY actual savings will be dwarfed by the increase in demand.
Our energy transmission system is a cluster fuck, especially in the northeast, the inefficiency in our grid could easily make up the difference if we updated the god damn thing.
I'll be damned, thats two things we agree on. I thought the stimulus bill should have been spent on the grid but it wasn't. Got a spare trillion laying around?
Not to mention that individual citizens waste a tremendous amount of power each day in this country, and we could more significantly reduce our demand if we simply stopped pissing so much of it away.
Good luck with that. You won't get the end consumer to reduce their usage without significantly increasing costs, that would literally make me a millionaire overnight and even I think its a bad idea. Even worse is that would destroy the poor and lower middle class (the pain gets less as you move up the chain) and it puts even greater costs on American produced goods (might be a non-issue, not sure if we have anymore at this point).
Personally, that's why I support something similar to cap and trade, though not necessarily the bill in the House. We need to change the way our citizens use energy, and hitting them in the wallet is a good way to get people's attention.
I have yet to see a good way to do that. Like I said, the more you increase the cost of energy the more money I make. You see, I actually put my money where my mouth is. I make a living off of renewable energy and I am what you would call a "true believer". Unfortunately, I also know the reality of the situation and the reality is we
will continue to use more oil than we did yesterday assuming the economy continues to grow. This will be a fact for at least a decade and more likely 2 decades or more. The only question is where we get the oil from and who benefits.
Facebook
Twitter